4 ms·

While I agree with you completely, I think what you are saying isn't at odds with what she is saying. While most pieces of writing about getting more women in

While I agree with you completely, I think what you are saying isn't at odds with what she is saying. While most pieces of writing about getting more women in tech seem to propose the problem as "How to Add Women to Tech", the real issue they're addressing is "How to Remove the Unnoticed Barriers to Women in Tech". Like any other majority, the male majority of the tech industry often take for granted a number of things as "normal", "everyone does them". People should absolutely "just hire the people who can do the work", but they should assure that their company and process are not set up in a way that, unbeknownst to them, turns off a certain minority whose needs they fail to recognize. These posts are trying to highlight those needs or differences so that it's easier to break that "normal" barrier.

mrjaeger 14y ago
I think the article might blur the line in some places between things that really are invisible barriers to hiring women and some that are just about hiring who you want. For example I could totally see the point about making sure at least one woman interviews every new hire to be a great policy. You always want to feel like you will fit in wherever you work, and being a woman and then seeing only men can feel a bit disconcerting and alienating. However I am lucky enough to work with a lot of great female coders and for some of them free chips and beer (and especially whisky shots!) would be a great perk.
- thetabyte 14y ago
  I have to agree with you there. That comes back to the biggest problem when dealing with any group of people: No two people are alike, despite whatever label you give them. There will always be exceptions, and no list of simple statements will cover all of them. However, that doesn't mean that an effort to compile a reasonable set of standards based on inputs from a large number of that group can't make significant strides in improving their situation, which is what really should be the focus.
wyclif 14y ago
Great reply, you said exactly what I was thinking when I read the parent comment.
jordo37 14y ago
Fantastic comment. I care a lot about diversity in tech because I fully believe it will make tech better, but ultimately for me in my company I am always going to hire the best person for the specific job being considered - that's never a question and I'm not sure where the jump usually happens between "don't turn off minorities in your process" and "hire with a priority on minorities"

mrjaeger 14y ago

I think the article might blur the line in some places between things that really are invisible barriers to hiring women and some that are just about hiring who you want. For example I could totally see the point about making sure at least one woman interviews every new hire to be a great policy. You always want to feel like you will fit in wherever you work, and being a woman and then seeing only men can feel a bit disconcerting and alienating. However I am lucky enough to work with a lot of great female coders and for some of them free chips and beer (and especially whisky shots!) would be a great perk.

thetabyte 14y ago
I have to agree with you there. That comes back to the biggest problem when dealing with any group of people: No two people are alike, despite whatever label you give them. There will always be exceptions, and no list of simple statements will cover all of them. However, that doesn't mean that an effort to compile a reasonable set of standards based on inputs from a large number of that group can't make significant strides in improving their situation, which is what really should be the focus.

wyclif 14y ago

Great reply, you said exactly what I was thinking when I read the parent comment.

jordo37 14y ago

Fantastic comment. I care a lot about diversity in tech because I fully believe it will make tech better, but ultimately for me in my company I am always going to hire the best person for the specific job being considered - that's never a question and I'm not sure where the jump usually happens between "don't turn off minorities in your process" and "hire with a priority on minorities"